Brittany Maynard ended her own life before her tumor could rob her of it

[Syriusly]

Maybe you should learn your terms before you engage and then find you have nothing but appeal to ridicule.

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7] and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries of the Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America.[8] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was classical conservatism. << -- Duh Innernet​

And Gay used to mean happy. Definitions change. The liberalism we know today has little to do with historical liberalism. Speech codes, for Pete's sakes, not to mention stomping on human rights.

Liberalism began as a rejection of state religion and in turn became a state religion.

Ignorant nonsense.

There are no 'speech codes,' whatever that's supposed to mean; and no one is “stomping on human rights,” the notion is delusional and ridiculous.

Liberalism is now and has always been the advocacy of pragmatism and the rejection of blind adherence to dogma – religious or political. Liberalism is now and has always been the advocacy of the right of individuals to self-determination, the right of individuals to engage in personal expression, and the right of individuals to make personal, private decisions concerning one's existence absent interference by the state: the right of a woman to decide to have a child or not, the right of a gay American to marry whomever he wishes, and the right of the individual to determine end of life matters also absent interference by the state.

Bakers and photographers and innkeepers excluded. Not to mention all those who fight for human rights.

That makes no sense.
You're trying to say Kurtz and his Authoritarian arrogance represent Liberalism?

I'm saying that Liberalism operates just like a religion. Religion is merely a category of ideology, one which appeals to mysticism. Remove the condition of mysticism and Liberalism is all about telling people what to do based on liberal views of what is best.

Yeah....like those great liberal notions of telling people how they are able to legally have sex, and which drugs that they are legally allowed to consume.

Check out how the State mandates "correct" behavior in the bedrooms of college students. "Enthusiastic consent" at every escalation of intimacy.

Check out how Louisiana Republicans fought to preserve sodomy laws, so that law enforcement could bust adults having consensual sex.

Are there such laws now? Liberals are the new Puritans. You know how Democrats like to tell everyone that the parties switched positions on racism, well that fib finally finds a place where it becomes true - liberals are the new sexual prudes, using law to control the behaviors of consenting adults having sex.

Seriously- you just ignored my post.

Check out how Louisiana Republicans fought to preserve sodomy laws, so that law enforcement could bust adults having consensual sex.

Liberals the new Puritans? It wasn't liberals who fought to keep sodomy laws legal in Louisiana.

Here are the true Puritans in action- April 2014

The Louisiana House voted 66-27 on Tuesday to keep the state's unconstitutional sodomy ban under Louisiana’s crimes against nature law.

That makes no sense.
You're trying to say Kurtz and his Authoritarian arrogance represent Liberalism?

I'm saying that Liberalism operates just like a religion. Religion is merely a category of ideology, one which appeals to mysticism. Remove the condition of mysticism and Liberalism is all about telling people what to do based on liberal views of what is best.

Yeah....like those great liberal notions of telling people how they are able to legally have sex, and which drugs that they are legally allowed to consume.

Check out how the State mandates "correct" behavior in the bedrooms of college students. "Enthusiastic consent" at every escalation of intimacy.

Check out how Louisiana Republicans fought to preserve sodomy laws, so that law enforcement could bust adults having consensual sex.

Are there such laws now? Liberals are the new Puritans. You know how Democrats like to tell everyone that the parties switched positions on racism, well that fib finally finds a place where it becomes true - liberals are the new sexual prudes, using law to control the behaviors of consenting adults having sex.

Yep- because Conservatives defeated the effort to repeal the Sodomy laws- in April 2014.

Advocates of the law, including the conservative Christian Louisiana Family Forum, argued that the statute protects children from aggravated "crimes against nature," although Smith pointed out that at least a dozen other laws protect minors from sexual assault.

Conservatives were- and are the modern Puritans

 

[Syriusly]

As already correctly noted – but warrants repeating – whether the issue is a woman's right to privacy, a gay person's right to equal protection of the law, or the right of an individual to make end of life decisions for himself, that one's religious beliefs are hostile to any or all of the above does not justify seeking to codify that religious belief and hostility in secular law.

Only liberals get to reserve for themselves the right to codify their religious beliefs into law and then impose them onto unwilling people who don't subscribe to the same religious beliefs. Other religions, nope tough luck. That's what happens in a religious war - some religions come out on top (Liberalism) and others lose (Christianity.)

Wow conservatives don't even know what religious beliefs are......what a shame.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Conservatives were- and are the modern Puritans

Funny how all the sex laws in effect are from liberals.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you should learn your terms before you engage and then find you have nothing but appeal to ridicule.

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7] and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries of the Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America.[8] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was classical conservatism. << -- Duh Innernet​

And Gay used to mean happy. Definitions change. The liberalism we know today has little to do with historical liberalism. Speech codes, for Pete's sakes, not to mention stomping on human rights.

Liberalism began as a rejection of state religion and in turn became a state religion.

Once again, a stunning display of Conservative ignorance.

 

[Syriusly]

Conservatives were- and are the modern Puritans

Funny how all the sex laws in effect are from liberals.

Sigh.....funny how Conservatives are the ones fighting to legally control how adults can have sex.

Louisiana Conservatives fought to preserve Louisiana's sodomy law- even though it is unconstitutional
Texas Conservatives fought to preserve Texas's law which told adults how they could have sex.

Liberals tried to revoke the sodomy law

This led Rep. Patricia Smith, D-Baton Rouge, to file the bill that would repeal Louisiana's anti-sodomy law, saying it would make the system fairer and more efficient.

So tell me about the sex laws in effect that are from liberals.

Because there are still 12 states with sodomy laws on the books- and almost all of them are Red States.

 

[Katzndogz]

A person wanting to commit suicide because their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them is wrong. But someone wanting to commit suicide to avoid the horrors that their terminal disease will bring them is not wrong. Using your religious beliefs to stop them is what is wrong.

Why is suicide due to depression wrong but suicide to avoid pain associated with terminal disease OK?

Why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?

Depression is recognized as a usually temporary mental condition- suicide would be a very permanent solution for a temporary problem- a problem that in and of itself could lead to judgement impairment.

But suicide for someone who is terminal? That is just moving up the end date of 'terminal', and giving the person control of when- and how that terminal condition ends. The law requires that the person be mentally competent in order to make that decision- something a depressed person would not be.

So why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?

Why should government tell a person that they can't end their own life?

Because the government invariably starts telling people to end their own lives and when. Legalized suicide has never stayed confined to the terminally ill. We are all terminal. The government always wants to be able to make that determination.

 

[Syriusly]

A person wanting to commit suicide because their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them is wrong. But someone wanting to commit suicide to avoid the horrors that their terminal disease will bring them is not wrong. Using your religious beliefs to stop them is what is wrong.

Why is suicide due to depression wrong but suicide to avoid pain associated with terminal disease OK?

Why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?

Depression is recognized as a usually temporary mental condition- suicide would be a very permanent solution for a temporary problem- a problem that in and of itself could lead to judgement impairment.

But suicide for someone who is terminal? That is just moving up the end date of 'terminal', and giving the person control of when- and how that terminal condition ends. The law requires that the person be mentally competent in order to make that decision- something a depressed person would not be.

So why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?

Why should government tell a person that they can't end their own life?

Because the government invariably starts telling people to end their own lives and when. Legalized suicide has never stayed confined to the terminally ill. We are all terminal. The government always wants to be able to make that determination.

Invariably......

So show me where that is happening in Oregon.

I don't want government to tell me I can't decide when to end my life, or when I can't.

You just want government to tell me I can.t.

 

[Godboy]

God has no pity for a suicide.

Amen to this. How did that girl know that there was most definitely no hope? I believe that the Lord could have healed that girl and now because of what she went and did to herself already, we will never know.

God bless you and her family always!!!

Holly

The Lord isnt healing ANYONE. Cute innocent little kids are dying every day, and their deaths are horrible and painful. Children are tortured and molested and dismembered, and the lord isnt helping them. If he was helping people, wouldnt taking care of ISIS take precedence over this girl? Would he have allowed Pol Pot to massacre millions of people? If there is a god, he sure as fuck isnt interfering with human existance. Its irresponsible to try and convince people that the lord is going to save them. Children die when their parents refuse medical help because people like you convince them that the fucking lord is going to do something about it.

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!!!

 

[Katzndogz]

A person wanting to commit suicide because their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them is wrong. But someone wanting to commit suicide to avoid the horrors that their terminal disease will bring them is not wrong. Using your religious beliefs to stop them is what is wrong.

Why is suicide due to depression wrong but suicide to avoid pain associated with terminal disease OK?

Why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?

Depression is recognized as a usually temporary mental condition- suicide would be a very permanent solution for a temporary problem- a problem that in and of itself could lead to judgement impairment.

But suicide for someone who is terminal? That is just moving up the end date of 'terminal', and giving the person control of when- and how that terminal condition ends. The law requires that the person be mentally competent in order to make that decision- something a depressed person would not be.

So why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?

Why should government tell a person that they can't end their own life?

Because the government invariably starts telling people to end their own lives and when. Legalized suicide has never stayed confined to the terminally ill. We are all terminal. The government always wants to be able to make that determination.

Invariably......

So show me where that is happening in Oregon.

I don't want government to tell me I can't decide when to end my life, or when I can't.

You just want government to tell me I can.t.

The law in Oregon is still quite new. In the Netherlands and Switzerland that have had these kinds of laws longer the scope of the law has expanded. A doctor no longer needs the agreement or request of the ill patient. Only an opinion that death is in the patient's best interests. Extended even to children.

I don't think the government should tell you that you can't. I do think the government should never be able to tell you that you must.

 

[Nosmo King]

When one is engaged in using his or her religious values to tell and make another what he or she thinks is best, then, yes, that is a form of sharia.

That invalidates almost the entire liberal world view. Now what will liberals do?

That makes no sense.
You're trying to say Kurtz and his Authoritarian arrogance represent Liberalism?

I'm saying that Liberalism operates just like a religion. Religion is merely a category of ideology, one which appeals to mysticism. Remove the condition of mysticism and Liberalism is all about telling people what to do based on liberal views of what is best.

Whenever a Conservative tries to tell us how a Liberal thinks or what a Liberal believes in, they reveal two essential flaws in the way they acquired and rationalizes their own political outlook.

President Obama giving religious instruction to women on how they MUST live their lives:

Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.​

Of course you would not understand because understanding means comprehending context, and that is something few rabid idiot Conservatives do.

What's the choice the president laid out? Leaving home for a job where wages have been depressed so even the effort of that job results in continued poverty AND the neglect of the children or, a job that pays a living wage so every effort at that job results in greater purchasing power AND care for the children.

Unless your real goal is depressed wages and neglected children (see page 5 of the Republican playbook)

 

[Fang]

I'd rather have seen her become a morphine addict than throw away her soul like that. God has no pity for a suicide.

Brittany is in Heaven right now standing next to Jesus.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Torn on this one. On the one hand, if things are truly hopeless, a person should have the right to end it. On the other hand, the worst pain is still better than the best being dead.

Jesus, you gotta' be kidding. Having had a parent and a spouse die from cancer, I can assure you there are things worse than death for the terminally ill. And the morphine isn't enough. There's nothing humane or dignified about being reduced to diapers while your organs fail.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Torn on this one. On the one hand, if things are truly hopeless, a person should have the right to end it. On the other hand, the worst pain is still better than the best being dead.

Jesus, you gotta' be kidding. Having had a parent and a spouse die from cancer, I can assure you there are things worse than death for the terminally ill. And the morphine isn't enough. There's nothing humane or dignified about being reduced to diapers while your organs fail.

Your call. Because I don't believe in God or an afterlife, I'll take the diapers and some pot brownies.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

She had second thoughts and expressed a change of heart. It's my opinion she was pressured into this. It's a shame, nothing noble

Oh for christ's sake you're a fucking idiot. You have no way of knowing WHAT she thought, you total jerk. I suppose she was also pressured into starting her entire media campaign and posting her video on YouTube in the first place? Pressured into moving to Oregon? To what gain would it be for anyone else?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Torn on this one. On the one hand, if things are truly hopeless, a person should have the right to end it. On the other hand, the worst pain is still better than the best being dead.

Jesus, you gotta' be kidding. Having had a parent and a spouse die from cancer, I can assure you there are things worse than death for the terminally ill. And the morphine isn't enough. There's nothing humane or dignified about being reduced to diapers while your organs fail.

Your call. Because I don't believe in God or an afterlife, I'll take the diapers and some pot brownies.

I am an atheist too, but pot brownies will only work up until about 2 months before you actually go, depending on your problem. Then they switch you to Vicodin. When that stops working, they switch you to morphine. That isn't enough the last couple of weeks but legally they can't prescribe anything else.

Maynard's doctors must have explained this to her so she could make her own decision. My spouse opted for no resuscitation, but I was not prepared for the nightmare of his pain and the doc's inability to help him in the last two weeks of his life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My mother died of cancer.

My wife died of cancer.

My daughter died of a brain tumor.

My sister died of pancreatic cancer.

Those of you who are yammering like mindless chipmunks, please be quiet.

Brittany had every moral and spiritual right to make such a decision.

You don't get to judge for her.

 

[BullKurtz]

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!!!

 

[BullKurtz]

Listen, cancer is a horrific and agonizing malady. Why it hasn't been cured after all this time and money spent should be what you atheists and mental cases start screaming about. The medical community has made fighting cancer a cottage industry and no industry works to end it's own existence. Progs are always telling me they're atheists and gorebal warming farce believers because "the science" tells them so. So how about getting your vaunted "science" into fighting cancer for a cure instead of a career?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bull talks bull.

Yes, it is horrible.

 

[WinterBorn]

Listen, cancer is a horrific and agonizing malady. Why it hasn't been cured after all this time and money spent should be what you atheists and mental cases start screaming about. The medical community has made fighting cancer a cottage industry and no industry works to end it's own existence. Progs are always telling me they're atheists and gorebal warming farce believers because "the science" tells them so. So how about getting your vaunted "science" into fighting cancer for a cure instead of a career?

There have been numerous cures discovered. But the term "Cancer" covers a multitude of mutated cell diseases.